|
hobbesmaster posted:But haven't churches been getting public funds for general purposes forever? Taken literally she's saying that the federal government should deny for example disaster relief money to churches because they're churches? She was saying the state may deny benefits without violating the free exercise clause. That doesn't mean that they must deny benefits, it only means that the state can discriminate between churches and nonchurches without violating the free exercise clause. There's space between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, where the state can choose to either discriminate or not to discriminate. Though she does think this particular one violated the establishment clause esquilax fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jun 26, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
botany posted:edit: as I understand it the problem with trinity isn't that it's somehow wrong for churches to receive money in special cases. it's that up until today state governments had some leeway in deciding in which cases this was appropriate. this decision for the first time mandates that state governments have to fund churches. I think the city can deny funds for logical reasons that are unrelated to their status as a church. Like "we already have 2 playgrounds and a city park within 5 blocks of that school, so this is a waste of money. The other side of town needs a playground more" would be fine. "No because you are a church, and we don't have to give any other reason" is now not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I think the city can deny funds for logical reasons that are unrelated to their status as a church. Like "we already have 2 playgrounds and a city park within 5 blocks of that school, so this is a waste of money. The other side of town needs a playground more" would be fine. "No because you are a church, and we don't have to give any other reason" is now not. More fundamentally, government grant programs basically 100% of the time get more applications for the grant than they have grants to give, and usually don't give any reason at all for why one was chosen over another, so I can't see a lot of cities giving money to churches in the future unless they really want to (hello, American South).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
What does per curiam mean again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What does per curiam mean again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:I don't understand Thomas and Gorsuch apparently finding it okay to appropriate tax money to religious schools even outside of the money only being used for playgrounds or other obviously secular purposes. I wonder if they would keep that view with a case where a Muslim school is using tax money to pay teachers who are teaching children about worshipping Muhammad. No, for obvious reasons (your scenario is completely different). Being able to compete for the same funds that all playground owners can compete for is completely different than paying religious teachers. You can try and make a fungibility argument but it really just doesn't work. If the point of a program is to make playgrounds safer (and reduce rubber waste) and the criteria for who gets first dibs does not take religion into account (and only focuses on objective criteria like how many kids can use it, who can access it and so on), there's no obvious reason why a church sponsored playground shouldn't be able to compete for those funds the same as anyone else. This is where a fungibility argument fails : even if we assume a church could shift money around and because of that spend extra money promoting religion, that result wouldn't be the government promoting religion anymore than giving the money to non -religious group ABC would be promoting whatever activities they also engaged in. Like lets say two groups with opposite views on global warming apply, them getting money from this program wouldn't be the government promoting either of their agendas. Separation of church and state is so church's don't get special treatment, positive or negative , not to silo the two into separate existences altogether. There's countless examples to back that up, most notably the special tax treatment for following rules that restrict speech. I mean suppose there was some program that helped fund vaccinations given in school, would we really want to say religious schools shouldn't be ale to use that program? Why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:No, for obvious reasons (your scenario is completely different). Being able to compete for the same funds that all playground owners can compete for is completely different than paying religious teachers. You can try and make a fungibility argument but it really just doesn't work. I mean yeah that's why the majority tried to limit the opinions scope to the playground. Gorsuch and Thomas, by rejecting that, "appear" to suggest you straight up can't deny giving funds to a religious school because it is religious, and regardless of how the money is to be used. This of course suggests the money can be used to further religious causes as opposed to repairing a playground or whatever. I used the Muslim school example cause I imagine it would be harder for Gorsuch to swallow than a Christian school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:No, for obvious reasons (your scenario is completely different). Being able to compete for the same funds that all playground owners can compete for is completely different than paying religious teachers. You can try and make a fungibility argument but it really just doesn't work. On the other hand it's okay for religious businesses to exempt themselves from contraceptive coverage under their insurance policy because of that "indirectly promoting" thing. While that may be rapidly headed for moot point territory as basic coverage requirements aren't part of the GOP plan for health reform, there's crossing precedents here where the court has deemed covering contraceptives as impinging on the values of hobby lobby whereas they are saying it doesn't count as federal promotion of religion if they're cutting a check to a church to lower the cost of resurfacing their church playground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What does per curiam mean again? Freely translated from the Latin: "Nobody's willing to put their own name on this thing."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But haven't churches been getting public funds for general purposes forever? Taken literally she's saying that the federal government should deny for example disaster relief money to churches because they're churches? I think Rygar nailed it: Rygar201 posted:I think Trinity Church is a reasonable holding. I think some of the seven justices will use it as cover when writing less reasonable opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Freely translated from the Latin: "Nobody's willing to put their own name on this thing." actually https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/879423520631128064
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Cert was denied today in Peruta v. San Diego, so we won't be seeing any groundbreaking new 2nd Amendment ruling out of the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
why are many supreme cour tjustices dishonest about the law and especially the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:why are many supreme cour tjustices dishonest about the law and especially the constitution. Because the court has always been political even when it pretends to not be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
political is fine it's just only one side resides in reality. "originalism" wouldn't be half as annoying if they actually made their decision based on how the constitution was written (gorsuch's recent decisions and scalia's gun decisions were directly counter to an actual originalist reading).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Trinity Church was set up as a test case to poke holes in church-state separation. Think it sounds reasonable? Great, you've been duped. The whole point of the case is to create space for that future "unreasonable " interpretation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trinity Church was set up as a test case to poke holes in church-state separation. Think it sounds reasonable? Great, you've been duped. The whole point of the case is to create space for that future "unreasonable " interpretation. Okay, but does that mean you rule against the plaintiff with the reasonable argument today? That seems equally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Okay, but does that mean you rule against the plaintiff with the reasonable argument today? That seems equally wrong. There's literally two centuries of precedent that states can ban the spending of public money on churches as long as you're not banning specific churches. That is and always has been legal. Freedom of religion being used as a sword to demand government support of religious institutions is new and inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:why are many supreme cour tjustices dishonest about the law and especially the constitution. Because they want the New Deal and abortion to be legal. Addendum: https://twitter.com/popehat/status/879462273458122752 Number Ten Cocks fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trinity Church was set up as a test case to poke holes in church-state separation. Think it sounds reasonable? Great, you've been duped. The whole point of the case is to create space for that future "unreasonable " interpretation. I was in the reasonable ruling camp, until I realized that the court didn't structure a test for good use/bad use. There is no scrutiny requirements on this; churches (or anything with religious identity? ) cannot be denied based on that fact. Footnote 3 says this only has to do with playgrounds, but the paragraph it comes from (and the paragraphs following) seem to plainly spell out how this applies for everything. Am I missing something here that gives the footnote weight over the  plain text of the decision?I don't read decisions ever, but Roberts shows how to pull off some folksy-ism at the end. Maybe he should take Gorsuch under his wing? quote:Nearly 200 years ago, a legislator urged the Maryland Assembly to adopt a bill that would end the State’s disqualification of Jews from public office: Hope I'm not angering the purists by actually formatting this correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trinity Church was set up as a test case to poke holes in church-state separation. Think it sounds reasonable? Great, you've been duped. The whole point of the case is to create space for that future "unreasonable " interpretation. The plaintiffs got votes from both Kagan and Breyer...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:IIRC, Thomas has an extremely narrow view of what counts as establishing a church. Like, not-even-Scalia levels of narrow. If Gorsuch is really signing on to that, that's pretty telling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Cert was denied today in Peruta v. San Diego, so we won't be seeing any groundbreaking new 2nd Amendment ruling out of the Court. That was a case that needed examining. I am getting really tired of the continued resistance the court has to doing its loving job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
You don't need to examine a correct lower court decision unless there's a circuit split and I don't believe there is on that one. There's a reason the Supreme Court denies most cert petitions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:52
|
|
ulmont posted:The plaintiffs got votes from both Kagan and Breyer... This was apparently an Alliance in Defense of Liberty case. The plaintiff was basically Rick Santorum. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Thomas thinks the bill of rights doesn't apply to states, so he would give the thumbs up to Alabama declaring Southern Baptism to be the official state church but would call foul if the federal government tried to do the same. As far as anyone knows he is the only member of the entire federal judiciary to hold that position. If I could somehow get a promise from a God, a demon, or whoever that the supreme court would never, ever have a conservative majority, then I would actually be happy with having Thomas on the court, and replace him with a wacky clone whenever he dies. His "I don't believe in stare decisis, like at all, period" point of view and crazyass opinions provide amusement several times a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You don't need to examine a correct lower court decision unless there's a circuit split and I don't believe there is on that one. There's a reason the Supreme Court denies most cert petitions. To him, "doing its loving job" is striking down every and any restrictions on guns. Let's ignore him and hope he goes away
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's literally two centuries of precedent that states can ban the spending of public money on churches as long as you're not banning specific churches. That is and always has been legal. Freedom of religion being used as a sword to demand government support of religious institutions is new and inappropriate. This. How can Gorsuch claim to be an originalist after ruling like this? Oh yeah, it's because originalism nowadays is nothing more than a paper-thin excuse for why it's okay for rich old men to gently caress over everyone else (and probably always has been). Also gently caress Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito for that dissent on the same sex couples. They'd overturn Obergefell in a second. gently caress, you guys, your NEWEST AND YOUNGEST supreme court justice is anti-gay. How is your country so hosed up??
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This was apparently an Alliance in Defense of Liberty case. The plaintiff was basically Rick Santorum. And? The church was explicitly denied a grant available to non-religious organizations on the grounds of being a religious organization. Ergo, religious discrimination without a state interest of the highest order. Case closed, on to the harder ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
ulmont posted:And? The church was explicitly denied a grant available to non-religious organizations on the grounds of being a religious organization. Ergo, religious discrimination without a state interest of the highest order. Case closed, on to the harder ones. The provision in the state constitution banning the giving of state funds to build churches has been around since 1820. Some of the founders who wrote the US constitution were alive then, and all of the people who wrote the Missouri constitution would have understood quite well the meaning of the US constitution when they wrote their own. Bulding and improving churches is one of the core things that the founders who wrote the constitutions of the US and of Missouri were dead set against the government doing. Aside from compelling worship, building churches or appropriating tax dollars for that purpose is arguably the biggest possible violation of separation of church and state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The provision in the state constitution banning the giving of state funds to build churches has been around since 1820. Some of the founders who wrote the US constitution were alive then, and all of the people who wrote the Missouri constitution would have understood quite well the meaning of the US constitution when they wrote their own. The founding fathers also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, so I'm not gonna rely on them as a compass. Some combination of Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, Heller v. D.C., and Obergefell v. Hodges should make it clear that older != correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This. How can Gorsuch claim to be an originalist after ruling like this? Oh yeah, it's because originalism nowadays is nothing more than a paper-thin excuse for why it's okay for rich old men to gently caress over everyone else (and probably always has been). To be fair the original intent was for rich old white men to gently caress over everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Aside from compelling worship, building churches or appropriating tax dollars for that purpose is arguably the biggest possible violation of separation of church and state. Also, just in case anyone is under the wrong impression, this is a playground located directly on church grounds to make their disciple making program more appealing. They claim that it would benefit neighborhood kids but the whole dang thing is fenced in so unless you're in a habit of climbing fences to get into daycare facilities it's probably not for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:Also, just in case anyone is under the wrong impression, this is a playground located directly on church grounds to make their disciple making program more appealing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
I hope democrats take back congress and the presidency and include "This law is explicitly constitutional." in their legislation and Gorsuch's head explodes when it's the Mandatory Abortions and Gays Act of 2021.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:The argument of, We definitely intentionally discriminated against that church on the basis of their religion, but we later found out their park kind of sucks for the purposes of the grant, so let this one slide, seems not very great. Not on the basis of their religion, on the basis of not funding religion with public money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trinity Church was set up as a test case to poke holes in church-state separation. Think it sounds reasonable? Great, you've been duped. The whole point of the case is to create space for that future "unreasonable " interpretation. Bingo. I'm very disappointed that Kagan didn't stand with Sotomayor and RBG. This is an opening thrust into a key pillar of the republic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The founding fathers also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, so I'm not gonna rely on them as a compass. Some combination of Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, Heller v. D.C., and Obergefell v. Hodges should make it clear that older != correct. Your argument is that Missouri's state constitution has been unconstitutional for the past 200 years and nobody noticed til now. That's why I am making an appeal to the age. This is not a new law that was challenged. It is an odd position to take, and surely one that an "originalist" like Gorsuch should be adamantly opposed to. But you and I are not originalists. With the knowledge we have now, it is clear that the principles of equality and equal protection in the constitution demand that we allow gay marriage. This makes sense to me. Your position in this case is that the original founding principles that led the founders to ban using taxes to build churches now give us an imperative to force states to give money to build churches. This does not make sense to me and I think it requires more explanation. What have we learned in the last 200 years that makes spending government money on churches now a moral imperative where it was once seen as an illegal establishment of religion? Let's be clear: the criteria that this church is using to say they ought to qualify for government money are based on the number of children at their daycare. So a minority religious group will never see these funds, which puts Missouri in a position where they are forced by the court to spend tax dollars from Muslims and Jews and Atheists to build church amenities for Christians, specifically because of which religion is in the majority. This is, in my view, totally hosed up and 100% counter to the ideal of separation of church and state. The notion that the state should be forced to give money to build and improve the religious facilities of majority religious groups while leaving minority groups out is offensive to me. Church of Satan needs to get in there and start up a 'Satan's Kidz Daycare' or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Government, it's funding, regulations and services are pretty much unavoidable in modern society. Avoiding giving funds to religious groups for religious purposes is a good and possible goal, trying to limit every grant or subsidy from having any positive benefit on a religiously affiliated organization is impossible. The court's conclusion already mentioned that denying police or fire services to religious buildings would be ludicrous. Why would society not want a playground to be renovated by a grant established to promote greater safety, regardless of whether said playground is operated by a religious group? Either way you're presumably sending fewer children to the local ER for concussions or tetanus infections, which most would regard as being in the collective interest of our society. If this were a grant program to assist local buildings remove asbestos from walls or replace lead pipes would we also want to exclude religious buildings?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
twodot posted:The argument of, We definitely intentionally discriminated against that church on the basis of their religion, but we later found out their park kind of sucks for the purposes of the grant, so let this one slide, seems not very great. Church playgrounds are like never open to the public, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 05:21
|
|
